Wikipedia coverage of GMOs is distorted. As is explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=681215863&oldid=681205376#Statement_by_Petrarchan47

"quasi-consensus can also be claimed for the idea that Jytdog and the ownership issues at the GMO suite since 2013 need to be the subject of deep investigation, as does the support from the community that upholds the POV and ignores glaring behavioural issues with Jytdog. Instead of the false claim that anyone is pushing "pseudoscience" at GM articles, the truth is that Jytdog has constructed and protected a Safety Consensus statement on GMO foods, pasted to at least 6 GMO articles, which does not have support even with 18 references he put together. Proof: RfC. This false construct published by Wikipedia is the subject of this paper (see #3), which names our GMO article specifically and shows it misrepresents science. Editors protecting this claim and other GMO POV-pushing are hostile to science that doesn't support it, hostile to editors seeking balance, and call any questioning of this "fringe". Science that is being disallowed shows that Wikipedia's wide-ranging safety claims are untenable at best.
http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf
http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/ *(Jytdog is currently trying to delete the page for this non profit, which calls his work into question)
The suggestion at ANI was that GMOs could fall under pseudoscience by referencing Seralini. I spoke to that here / +, and suggest a deep look into the Seralini case, and WP editors' responses to it.

@Roches Powerful WP:MEDRS from Krimsky - review of all safety studies since 2008
@Jtrevor99 Correction: Guardian WHO (politics); France "latches on"
@David Tornheim - Corrections: a) The claim was attributed to the AAAS by WP, but came from the BoD (more); b) "Arc de Ciel" aka User:Sunrise (mentioned in your first diff)
Diffs:

Comparison of GM foods article before/after Jytdog's overhaul *
Spindoctoring Antidepressant : Swaps out reference to "withrawal" * * and reverts W.H.O. source linking creation of new terminology with Eli Lilly: *
Collusion, bullying *
Referring to MEDRS as "fringe", stating discussions have taken place when they haven't *
Jytdog shown he misrepresents the WHO (Sarah SV makes this clear), responds with nonsense * (as does KingofAces *), accuses new editor of misreading source *, admits to using SYNTH/OR * in his Scientific Consensus statement. He has since been forced to amend the statement.
Equates GE food with natural/forced hybridization, erasing mention of "natural" food *
Refutes Seralini with OR/editorializing, misleading edit summary *, with OR and "weedcontrolfreaks.com" *
Removed MEDRS-needed tag from "broad scientific consensus" claim cited to blog *, uses poor source to claim "broad scientific consensus" *
Judges source based on POV */*
Said nothing when in the midst of this, associate* Sunrise did this
Removed criticism about drug, misleading edit summaries *, *, excused it *, re-added as rebuttal *
Notes:

@ArbCom members, the framing of this case is a non-neutral, irrelevant theory; no anti-GMO faction exists on WP. 'Fringe advocates versus stewards of the project' is an inaccurate, baseless storyline. (Tsavage on "fringe" and the GMO pages: *:)
This case should extend to pharmaceutical articles."

Much of our food (http://tinyurl.com/82uo97s) and water (http://tinyurl.com/d348h9z) is poison. On the subject of food, the above source by Jeffery Smith (who has of course been attacked for his work: http://tinyurl.com/27cp8nj) contains a plethora of information. His views have been corroborated by many studies, but this is seldom discussed, as in mainstream media, the purported "benefits" of GMO food are touted as a means of "preventing hunger". GMO foods actually produce lower yields (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html). - in the October 25, 1998 New York Times Magazine article Playing God in the Garden, Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, was quoted as saying (http://books.google.com/books?id=8vyBx61gXjEC&pg=PA79&dq=%22Monsanto+should+not+have+to+vouchsafe+the+safety+of+biotech+food.+Our+interest+is+in+selling+as+much+of+it+as+possible.+Assuring+its+safety+is+the+F.D.A.%27s+job%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yvvsUKC0Ke70igKOtYDgDg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Monsanto%20should%20not%20have%20to%20vouchsafe%20the%20safety%20of%20biotech%20food.%20Our%20interest%20is%20in%20selling%20as%20much%20of%20it%20as%20possible.%20Assuring%20its%20safety%20is%20the%20F.D.A.%27s%20job%22&f=false) "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job". Yet the FDA's Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties states that (http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm) "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety." - The BBC reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/545504.stm) on the ecological hazard of the GM process in an article entitled "'Trojan Gene' could wipe out fish" - Gilles Seralini, author of the famous GM study (with rather horrific pictures: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637) showing cancer in mice fed GM corn, faced (unwarranted: http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294) criticism from the establishment, but has refuted (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512008149) criticism of his work. and a previous meta-analysis (http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10) established organ damage from GM foods, sterility percolating down the genetic lineage has been found in rats fed GMO diets (http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765/), and a plethora of other studies have also shown problems (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/pseudo-scientific-defense-of-gmo-safety-is-smoke-and-mirrors/). Also, in Feb. of 2012, the journal Archives of Toxicology published a study showing that the herbicide Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240). One study in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/abs/nbt934.html), while ruling out the overall effect of horizontal gene transfer from GMOs, nevertheless noted that the genetic material in soybeans that make them herbicide tolerant transferred into the DNA of human gut bacteria and continued to function. Other studies on animals with similar cells to humans were more emphatic. Animal research published in 2003 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612415) in the journal of Environmental Biosafety Research showed that genetically modified lactic acid bacteria are capable of transferring recombinant genes sequences directly into Enteroccous faecalis, a naturally occurring species of digestive tract bacteria found in humans. Other animal research (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9819049) on orally ingested foreign DNA not only shows it is capable of transferring to, and/or altering genetic information within, the animal consuming it, but is also capable of affecting the genetics of the fetuses and newborn of pregnant mice who were fed it. FDA internal documents (http://www.biointegrity.org/) show that the FDA approval process was corrupt - at odds with the recommendations of its own scientists. And a guide for the public (http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58) by two genetic engineers, also further controverts defenses of GM foods. Also - there is a discrepancy between the promoters of GMOs and their actual eating habits: The Rockefeller foundation is behind much of the "green revolution", yet the Rockefellers themselves are devotees of organics (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/dining/dine-at-the-rockefellers-get-in-touch-with-the-earth.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm). The Chinese Communist Party elite eat untainted organic food grown in special gardens (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/16/world/la-fg-china-elite-farm-20110917) while the bulk of the population eats tainted food. Nancy Pelosi got congress to have an organic kitchen, but certainly didn't care for the normal citizenry - as this article notes (http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Pelosi-leads-the-House-to-go-organic-in-its-3234457.php) - Pelosi "may have left her progressive instincts at the barn door when she drove a starch-, sugar- and fat-bloated bill that all but left out organic farmers through the House last summer, but when it comes to food for Congress, it's out with high-fructose corn syrup and in with uncaged hens and hormone-free milk." They are hip to the mythological nature of the deceptions that are used to sell tainted food.
And genetic modification of corn and soy so that it resists the popular herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), is creating new gut destroying pathogens, according to the research of professor Don Huber (http://tinyurl.com/6y6k7vt).
Glyphosate has been linked to all kinds of environmental and health problems in previous peer-reviewed literature (http://tinyurl.com/78g9omm).

I don't have the time to get into the issues in depth. Those who desire to do this can pursue the text of Mae-Wan Ho and Lim Li Ching entitled "GMO Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply" (Vital Health Publishing, 2004).: https://books.google.com/books?id=azo_NxEjFGAC